Webmaster's note: This article makes frequent reference to the Constitution. These references can be looked up at www.Constitution.org

----- Original Message -----

From: Mrglenn700@cs.com
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: * * Judicial Accountability v. Judicial Responsibility * *

This is in response to the article included below following this response, and authored by JOHN HANNA, Associated Press, TOPEKA, and printed in The Wichita Eagle.

The article itself is then followed by a typically well thought and stated response from Ron Branson, author of J.A.I.L.

It is to the credit of JOHN HANNA, Associated Press, TOPEKA, and The Wichita Eagle for bringing this controversy to the public light.

The headline in the newspaper article is perhaps misleading, inaccurate or needlessly inflammatory: "Judge blasts amendment to limit courts' powers."

This statement seems misleading, unless of course, the powers that the courts, in admission to in actual due course of practice, do hold, are indeed contrary to the powers ordained and established in the judiciary by "We the People" through their/our documented lawful instrument: "this Constitution for the United States of America."

Did "We the People" intend to, and in actuality author a constitution to "guarantee a Republican Form of Government?"

Do we live with an operational and lawfully ordained and established "Republican Form of Government" today? Why or why not? How many Americans even know what "a Republican Form of Government" is and is not?

Why or why not?

I was "taught" we were a "democracy." I was "taught" we were a Democratic Republic. I was "taught" we were a Republican Democracy.Our government mandated "state public common high schools" certainly do not teach in depth what "a Republican Form of Government" is and is not.

Why might it be especially important to understand what "a Republican Form of Government" is not?

"...this Constitution for the United States of America bears upon government.

"...this Constitution for the United States of America" has indeed been grossly misinterpreted by a judiciary ostensibly claiming through presumption, innuendo, and propaganda to assume that the document itself gives that branch the power to "interpret."

"...this Constitution for the United States of America" is very simple, and is worded precisely using plain and simple language in a direct and forthright manner.

It is a historically documented fact that the very letter of "this Constitution for the United States of America" was hotly debated down to each exact formal structural placement of article and section, grammatical construct, term, word, letter, style and punctuation mark, and was forged, tempered, and implemented only after agreement on such exacting precision was either reached or mutually conceded.

It would appear from due diligent study of the signed body of the document that any judiciary interpretation is a perversion of the letter of the law. The law is: "this Constitution for the United States of America." This is the law. It is simple and precise. Nowhere in what is, by definition within the document, a "law of laws" is the "judicial Power of the United States" given power to interpret "this Constitution," or anything arising from it.

To define words contrary to actual etymological definition and apply thusly perverted definition to conditions of living breathing human existence is usurpation and abuse of power and authority by design of propaganda, deception, or worse.

This would be to war upon the letter of the law.

"...this Constitution for the United States of America" (the preposition "for" is emphasized to distinguish between what has been misrepresented as Title both as written, and as disingenuously offered as Title with a blatant bastardization of the original wording, and thus, intent, of the document as The Constitution of The United States of America. (Emphasis again added.)

The "judicial Power of the United States" does not have any express or implied authority--it has authored nothing, and is expressly prevented from authoring anything.  In fact, the whole purpose of the Constitution is to explicitly prevent any authority over and above what "We the People" are the express author of. There has apparently arisen a misperception of the definition of the term " authority."

The term authority stems by etymology from the term author. In Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the noun "author" is most clearly defined as "the maker of anything; creator; originator;" and the verbal infinitive "to author" is defined as, "to originate, to create a design for..." from the Latin auctor writer, progenitor.

It would seem by simple logic to follow that authority, even if construed contrary to the etymological definition of the root is, in fact, nonetheless subject to the author.

(See a short, simple, and concise treatise entitled Logic written in the mid nineteenth century by George Booles, for rational application of logic to a problem, statement, or proposition.)

Even if it were conceivable that the judiciary indeed had the express power or even the implied power to interpret the letter of the law, the judiciary has no express power to misinterpret the letter of the law by construing and/or constructing terms in opposition to or in obfuscation of rational and logically concluded meanings stemming from etymological roots, for the presumptuous purpose of assuming powers not explicitly ordained and established by "We the People," the author of "this Constitution for the United States of America."

When "We the People" happen to become ignorant or weary of the process of definition of terms, does that give the issue the right or power to usurp the author (progenitor) who carefully chose terms based upon limitation and definition to be explicit?

Has lack of vigilance in popular understanding of definition played a key role in any usurpation of any establishment or ordainment pursuant to the law of the Republic?

By authority of "We the People" in ordaining and establishing "this Constitution for the United States of America," the power of the judiciary" is most explicitly "bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution." (Emphasis added.)

In empowering the judiciary, (as well as the other branches) the judiciary is ultimately placed explicitly in bondage. A person, or entity that is "bound" by definition, and law, logically becomes property of, or at best, a bondservant to that author to which it is bound by law.

To whom are the subjects of "this Constitution" bound?

Who and what are the subjects of "this Constitution?"

The Constitution as signed, is, metaphorically, an organic document with a seminal force planted in fertile ground and manifesting in structural proceeding from a root. This is so stated and described in the "preamble" explaining and empowering the document.

The statement is carefully and simply put and has explicit and clearly discernible definition and meaning according to the grammar and etymology of the English language:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This "preamble" is a complex sentence. It consists of an independent clause, and a dependent fragment.

The independent clause in a complex sentence is a complete sentence unto itself that defines or gives meaning to or is defined by or all of the preceding by a dependent clause or fragment, which is an incomplete sentence--a sentence fragment lacking in some grammatical construct which would render it complete, and relying upon the independent clause to render it complete.

Here, the independent clause is "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It clearly states what is being activated and who and what the author of the action is.

The dependent clause states why the action is taken: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

This, as precisely stated--no more no less--is the end which is the proposition of the means.

One needs to understand exactly what is being stated here, by definition, and grammatical construction--it is clear and explicit in meaning and intention, and functions as a concise instrument of law, which lawfully empowers and defines that which follows.

One needs thus-wise to also examine the whole of the original finalized and signed constitution manuscript as it was written in hand.

According to manuals of style and usage in the English language, it would seem to must needs be to follow rationally and logically, from observing the stylistic structure and formal design of the letter of the manuscript itself, that the Title given is clearly to "We the People," and further, the subtitle is "of the United States."

Further still, the "United States" is explicitly referenced in the empowering statement of the auctors (progenitors) as a "Union," to be further perfected in form and substance, and referenced and defined in the signed body of the document following as "the several states which may be included in this Union."

It is grammatically clear that "the United States" is a description of the parts of a Union rather than a Title in deed, and it is clearly a plural. That the attaching article is invariably not capitalized precludes any claim of Title by "the United States."

The Title to the document set in hand to manuscript and signed is clearly not given as to The Constitution, the Constitution, The Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of the United States of America, The U.S. Constitution, The US Constitution, or any other various and sundry constructions or play on these terms, that is commonly represented by many as holding Title.

To presume to think of the document under such assumption or premise is utterly erroneous on the face of it.

There is no such thing as the Constitution. An article does not attach the object, thus not giving Title anywhere within the document as signed. Rather, an adjective or pronoun at all times indicates an object of a preposition rather than Title.

The Title to the document is, by accepted grammatical, stylistic, and formal usage of the English language, held in proper place rightfully and lawfully by "We the People."

Stated once only and in the superior position holding clear Title to all that follows.

The words I myself choose herein are chosen quite carefully and deliberately and each has been researched and studied to ascertain definite functional and etymological integrity.

Ever greatly more so were the words and grammatical construct chosen for the preamble or empowering clause of "this Constitution for the United States of America, as well as that which followed!

To do otherwise would be totally lacking in integrity.

One simply cannot and must not read, write, or invoke words without knowing their history and thus the integrity of their usage. Having left undone that which we ought to have done, there is no health in us. In pondering the utmost importance of the understanding of the use and power of words, consider:  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

The prepositional phrase (pre-posit-ion-al) "of the United States," is the predominant and preeminent frame of reference and object in "this Constitution for the United States of America, which is subject.

The prepositional phrase "of the United States," has absolutely no substantive relevance to or connection to, or bearing on, the prepositional phrase used in "this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis added.)

It is apples and oranges.

Further, it is grammatically integral that the phrase "of the United States" references as a clear plural: Article III, Section 2, for instance, (since unlawful usurpation of power by the judiciary is under consideration), "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." (Emphasis added.)

Further reference includes in a position of authority and not as subject to authority "...the People of the several States," and, "...the several States which may be included within this Union."

The definition of "the United States," which is a phrase and not Title, is thus stated: "...the several States which may be included within this Union."

This is consistent with definition in the preamble.

The phrase "Government of the United States" renders the term government indistinct from all other constitutional ordainments and establishments by "We the People," in connection with the object of the preposition in the prepositional phrase "of the United States." (Plural)

The "Government of the United States" is of no more consequence than any other subject of the object, and in fact the majority of subjects relative to this object serve explicitly to limit the definition and diminish the construction of the terms of "government," as well as their substantive manifestation.  For instance, "the Congress of the United States" is clearly superior to "the Government of the United States," since in Article I. Section. 8. "The Congress shall have Power To... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If "The Congress" is recognized as having "Power" superior to "the Government of the United States," as stated above, it follows that the Congress of the United States is not even of "the Government of the United States."

Logical application dictates that it cannot be.

No living breathing flesh and blood  person is subject to "the Government of the United States" (again, a distinct plural object of a preposition), indeed, "the Government of the United States is itself subject to that which does "ordain and establish."  In fact, a formal written and documented and signed declaration of independence, which resulted in war, issued in large part, in opposition to a people being held subject to government rather than existing in action and power as sovereign to government.

The term "government"  is used only about four times in "this Constitution for the United States of America," as signed; only twice subject to the prepositional phrase "of the United States" (plural), and only once as subject to "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States..." and at that is defined and limited as being subject to the Laws of the Congress of the United States.

Again--there is the Congress of the United States--"...the People of the several States," and, "...the several States which may be included within this Union."

It is not the Congress of the Government of the United States.

The "Government of the United States" is by law, clearly inferior and subject to "the Congress of the United States." In fact, any mention of "the Government of the United States" is to distinctly make "the Government of the United States" inferior and subject to those who hold in document clear Title and "do ordain and establish."

A people cannot logically be subject to that which is first and foremost subject to that same people.

Further, it is a misperception and a falsehood that there are Branches of Government. There are legislative Powers, (plural) executive Power (singular), and judicial Power (singular). All are vested. None are vested under Title of "the Government of the United States." In fact "the Government of the United States" is clearly but a process, and not an entity, body,  or institution in or of Title. Bouvier in his treatise on law states: "In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people," and, "Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation;" and further, "...by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance..."

Again, "absolute sovereignty" documents historically the duty "to alter or abolish," which was accomplished, and still holds in doctrine under historicaly applicable documentation.

Even if one were to argue that "We the people" is the subject of a sentence, "do ordain and establish" is the predicate of a sentence, and "this Constitution for the United States of America" is the object of a sentence, the fact that "We the People" hold clear Title of the object documented, would put that subject in holding of sovereignty over and above anything under that Title.

The subject of the sentence then, by virtue of the definition of the predicate, is subject ultimately only to itself.

Again, logic dictates that sovereignty, which resides in the body of the people, cannot rationally be claimed as subject to that which is first and foremost subject to that same sovereignty.

It is cogent that judicial response to any perceived attempt to infringe upon a presumptuously assumed power is often a bit hysterically incredulous, as evidenced by what might seem to be an absurdly contrived "statement:"

"Amending the state constitution to rein in the courts would make the judiciary 'a toothless debating society,' "  
                                                                    -- Judge Terry Bullock

How so?

By statement in public record of the words "Amending the state constitution to rein in the courts," Mr. Bullock himself admittedly gives first voice to the suggestion that the courts be reined in for cause.

Judge Bullock argues, "that for several centuries, judges have made law by deciding cases where there are no legal precedents or statutes to follow."

A war was fought on this continent to overcome contemporary manifestations of "several centuries" of abuses of power.

When and where are there "no legal precedents or statutes to follow?"

Common Law seems to indicate that where there is no injured party there is no breach of Law, and that, unless I am mistaken, where there is an injured party, a jury is to decide the facts and the law.

We have a jury to prevent Mr. Bullock's premise from allowing usurpation or other abuse of presumptuously assumed power.

Mr. Bullock, a judge, argues for the separation of powers by invoking a statement which obliterates the separation of powers. Mr. Bullock states, "...it might be you or your children or your grandchildren who need the court's protection in enforcing our most basic of legal values."
(Emphasis added.)

Judiciary has no constitutionally express powers to enforce laws, or values, any more than it has had powers to legislate simply because as Mr. Bullock states, "for several centuries, judges have made law."

Finally, judicial Power does not include the express power to interpret "this Constitution for the United States of America, and  judicial power is vested and, further,  "bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution--" support not interpret, and further yet, bound as property of the author!

So, we now have public admission by a judge, of judicial Power "enforcing our most basic of legal values," and an admission that "judges have made law," and an assertion that this abrogation of of the separation of powers is actually essential to preserving the separation of powers.

J.A.I.L. seems to propose judicial accountability largely through jury.

Article III, Section 1. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." (Emphasis added.) Honesty and Truth simply will not, do not, and cannot by definition seek to eschew scrutiny!

It is becoming my experience that many genuinely concerned and earnest people seem to believe that the constitutionally limited and "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by "the United States" is somehow a repugnant anachronism, or are for some reason totally uneducated, unaware and/or ignorant of, or blind to the concept of Republic as applies to "...the several States which may be included within this Union."

I am invariably scorned, ridiculed, and censured with mild to moderate ridicule and sarcasm, or worse, when I seriously broach the subject of "We the People," the Republic, or the constitution in a Public Forum, meeting, private conversation, professionally viable public school lesson (I am or was a public school teacher), etc...

Those who do this also poignantly are invariably meeting to bemoan the vast oceans of interminable regulation in which we seem to be floundering, yet they are seeking insistently to remedy the excesses implemented through and occasioned by swells of debt-generating regulatory excess with yet greater seas of costly and unnecessary regulatory construction!

"We the People" did "ordain and establish" a simple regulatory instrument that has been unhappily usurped, by a body that was created to be largely a juristic referee, through unlawful presumptuous assumption of powers not granted by its author.

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance.

That is not such an expensive price--that is a bargain!

It is interesting to note, that when I address these subjects seriously to the more or less innocent, innate critical thinking capacities of young people in my duties (former) as a school teacher, the young people, having never been privy to this level or form of information, or exposed to this approach, thirsting for real knowledge, are eager to accept the study. It is novel and out of the ordinary to them, and it answers many troubling unanswered questions, and fills many gaps in their education that their young inquisitive minds perceive and naturally wonder and fret about.

For this work, I have apparently been relieved of a teaching position, and blacklisted from further employment in the government mandated "state educational system."

Passing a "Constitution Examination" is a prerequisite for graduation from most "public" and "private" high schools and universities.

However, the preparation for successfully fulfilling the requirement has been observed to focus primarily on mere rote knowledge concerning what is "in the Constitution," its form and structure, and not on the application, comprehension, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the meaning of the terms, and the substance of the instrument.

It is but another pesky requirement cursorily administered, memorized, performed, passed through, and forgotten.

Examine such an "examination" and one will find an exercise that does not challenge any vestige of critical thinking or address the higher cognitive skills mentioned above, other than rote knowledge--the lowest of the taxonomy of right hemispheric cognitive functions and skills.

Knowledge without comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation will inevitably be forgotten. Examine a cross section of "examinees," and carefully apply some critical thinking to data garnered by the exercise.

This is a personal response, and is not intended to represent the views or intent of J.A.I.L.

However, to my best understanding, J.A.I.L. is an extremely critical proposition, ultimately for a Constitutional Amendment greatly needed to bring the judiciary back within the limits of the mandate ordained and established by "We the People," in "this Constitution for the United States of America," and the Constitutions of each of  "...the several States which may be included within this Union,"  through juristic accountability now lacking, by design of the judiciary itself, in granting itself immunity from any lawful activity designed to enforce the "law of the land" stating that: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

There is now a golden opportunity, hard won, to amend the Constitution of the state of South Dakota to constitute, mandate, and insure judicial accountability, in the interests of restoring the system of checks and balances between the three branches under the separation of powers,  thus reviving or restoring the Republic to which we still on occasion Pledge Allegiance.

Michael R. Glenn
Mrglenn700@cs.com
Illinois J.A.I.L.

Article this Article by Michael R. Glenn is in response to.

Return To JNJ 2005

To JNJ Library Index for All Years